8 Responses

Dear Christof, we all speculate, compare and try to fit data to a hypothesis, sometimes we are lucky, sometimes less than. I have not got to comparing Charolais to specific Richental manuscripts, not a bad idea, and will confidently leave that to Tina and you. Anyway, I forgot to mention that ‘Moro Orbini’ certainly got his Bosnia from Richental. So with a roundabout, you were right!

Christof Rolker and Tina Raddatz are right in noting the importance of the work of Ulrich Richental for the development of German heraldry, especially the armorials from Southern Germany, which have collectively been dubbed the Bodensee Group.
The heraldic communication at the Council of Constance in 1414-18 must have been enormous, but the reception or propagation over time may have been less concious than envisaged by Torsten Hiltmann. For those interested, I have noted some similarities in the following: Steen Clemmensen S. Imaginary arms – traditions in medieval armorials. Actes du 27e Congrès International des Sciences Généalogique et Héraldique 2006 en St.Andrews, Scotland, 1:229-244. Genealogica et Heraldica, Heraldry Society of Scotland, Edinburgh 2008; Steen Clemmensen: Medieval armorial displays from Southern Germany. Genealogica & Heraldica. Identität in Genealogie und Heraldik. XXIX. Internationaler Kongress der Genealogischen und Heraldischen Wissenscahften, Stuttgart 2010. Stuttgart 2012, p.170-179; Steen Clemmensen: Medieval armorials – types, relations and confounders. IN: Miguel Metelo de Seixas: Estudos de Heráldica Medieval. Lisboa 2012, p.37.
Editions of the five Richental manuscripts with armorials included and of the work by the portuguese herald can be found on my website: Steen Clemmensen: Arms and people in Ulrich Richental’s Chronik des Konzils zu Konstanz 1414-1418. Farum, 2011, 474 pp., http://www.armorial.dk/german/richental.pdf (KCR); Steen Clemmensen: Herald’s Book al. Livro de Arautos al. De ministerio armorum. An armorial of the Council of Constance 1414-1418 by an anonymous portuguese herald.– Farum 2011, http://www.armorial.dk/german/arautos.pdf .
Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain the digitalisat on the link or on the Gallica website for the Charolais manuscript, Bibl.Arsenal, ms.4150:117r-124r (extracts of KCR segments 10, 18-19), but a transcription is available via my website.

A last note on Charolais – while fol. 117r mentions the Council of Constance, and clearly is the beginning of a section lifted ultimately from Richental, the latter seems also to have been used for the preceeding part of Charolais. On fol. 75r for example, starts a section “Christan kings from Europe and Asia”, the first of which is Bosnia (more precisely, three Bosnian arms). Richental’s armorial is the only medieval armorial I know of that divides its material according to the three /partes/ Asia, Africa and Europe, and Bosnia happens to be the first European kingdom in Richental’s armorial. Thus, it seems to me quite likely that Richental was used for this part of the Charolais armorial too.

Indirectly, Christof points to a general problem with imaginary arms, i.e. similar arms may be attributed to different heroes or territories. He also, rightly, speculates whether other parts of Charolais could have come from Richental (KCR). However, a close examination show that of the arms on fo.75r, only one is comparable to Richental, and and for this the copyist ‘Marquis d’Haucourt’ gives the source: “according to Moro Orbini”.
KCR:238 reads [2 chicots in saltire terminated in blackamoor’s heads] and was probably attributed to Bosnia, but it is also named as Bulgaria on a map of 1593 by Gerard de Jode. In Crollalanza DH 2:405 and Rolland (Rietstap) 5:133 as ‘Ré di Bossina’, from Venezia. In CHA:596 as ‘bosnie selon moro orbini’, i.e. Mauro Orbini Rauseo, fl.1550-1614, benedictine Ab.Melitense, historian from Dubrovnik, influential in slav history, ‘The Realm of the Slavs’, Pesaro 1601, reprint Zagreb 1999.

My speculation on the use of Richental for Charolais p. 75 was precisely this – a speculation. Given that we are talking about a 17th c. copy of an armorial supposed to be compiled in the 15th c., but manifestly “updated” in parts, talking about the genesis of Charolais is necessarily speculative.
My reasons were twofold: first, Richental is used elsewhere for Charolais; secondly, Richental and Charolais both place Bosnian arms at the beginning of a section of “European arms” (Richental) or “European and Asian arms” (Charolais), and that’s quite peculiar.

If (and its a big “if”, I admit) Charolais depends on Richental for Bosnia, it used a manuscript belonging to the Aulendorf/Prague branch of the transmission (and not one like mss K or W, or any of the printed versions, for that matter). The reason to think so is that both in Richental ms A, p. 485 and ms Pr, fol. 249r, two Bosnian arms are shown; one has the title “Europa” next to it, the other has the two chicots in saltire with moor’s heads. This combination is not found in K, W or D1.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Name *

Email *

Website

Follow:

The collaborative blog Heraldica Nova is an initiative of the Dilthey-Project ‘Die Performanz der Wappen’ (University of Münster) which aims to study medieval and early modern heraldry from the perspective of cultural history. Read more ...